Civics and Civil Wars/Secessions

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I like the idea of tying Secession to changing your civics options, with perhaps the base chance depending on how much your new civics options differ from your current civ traits.
Also, if national happiness or health fall below a certain threshold, then this should also give a potential chance for secession. Losing your capital should raise the possibility of secession, but only for a sprawling and/or poorly run empire. Also starting unpopular wars or signing unpopular peace (as well as letting wars run for TOO long) should have a chance of sparking secessionism as well. Lastly, it should be possible for a foreign power to try and use his intelligence service to spark a secession.
The chance of a city seceeding would depend on its distance from the capital, the number of foreign citizens/non-believers, the size of your garrison, the city's happiness, health and culture level, and its degree of war weariness. Also, proximity to another seceeding city should increase the chance as well.
Of course secession doesn't mean civil war-if you LET these cities go voluntarily, then you may gain a very valuable ally-or even a nation with protectorate/vassal status. My point is that secession-even if badly handled-need not be a complete disaster!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Vince278]

Moot.

(unless we are doing a Civ 5 wishlist or discussing the possibility of modding with the SDK)

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, from a model point of view I agree, but if Civil war IS in the game (and we hope it is) then we can discuss how it might work and/or how we might change it !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Vince278
Moot.

How do you know?

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Vince278

Moot.

How do you know?

Even though its my dream to have some kind of civil war, I fear that he's right. I think this because of the IGN interview, where the idea of civil wars was raised in a question, but ignored. I think the prime reason for that part of the question to be ignored because it wasn't a selling point, like the other features were. This would lead me to believe its been left out of the game, or not very likely to be left in.

[Fosse]

I love the civics based secession idea. Adding religion into the mix might make sense too. Just changing your relgion over night seems like the sort of thing that might ruffle a few feathers, no?

I think that letting it only impact the most geographically sprawling civs is a nice touch, since for most of history being gigantic was a good way to get split up easily.

That would mean that it could happen to the biggest kids on the block, or the civs who have been cut in half and were about to die anyway. The kids in the middle of the road would be able to change civics all day long.

If Firaxis announced that they were delaying the game until 2006 to implement an idea like this I'd jump for joy. I'll play the game for years... so I want good civil wars!

[Tomasz]

It would be also very interesting, at least for me, if you could start as rebelling minority and face the struggles any new nation has to face. Afterall, Civ 4 is meant to have an option were you start in any era you want, so maybe you could start as a new nation that just separated from a bigger one.

Tomasz

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Cabbagemeister
Having your revolting cities join other civs is a neat idea, but IMO less historically realistic. Now, if there was something like, they would join another civ that had the civic your civ just abandoned and had similar religions, then maybe it could work. But then we're getting into culture-flipping-esque things that lots of people dislike

I never had that happen to me in SMAC...maybe I didn't play the game enough. Under what circumstances did it happen?

A base had to be in drone riots for two or more turns.
Of course this rarely if ever happens to an experienced player. If all other options fail, one can always convert lots of doctors to boost psych, even if this means the base would starve.

[Myrddin]

If there is a penalty for changing civics it is likely to be 1 turn of anarchy, as for changing religion.

[Cabbagemeister]

Yup, I agree, it'll most likely be a turn of anarchy. Which is fine, as far as it goes. It's just so...unimaginative.

[Kuciwalker]

So anarchy could have a chance of turning into civil war.

[GeoModder]

Then you have to have at least 6 turns of anarchy, one for every single change in civic and state religion. Probably even more for those times a player 'upgrades' to a better civic. My, in earlier civ versions the typical game would have had less then 6 anarchy turns, and civ IV has less turns available...

[vovan]

Originally posted by GeoModder
and civ IV has less turns available...

It does? Was there some info on the number of turns I missed?

[Kuciwalker]

He's partly incorrect. There is the option to play shorter games.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Then you have to have at least 6 turns of anarchy, one for every single change in civic and state religion. Probably even more for those times a player 'upgrades' to a better civic. My, in earlier civ versions the typical game would have had less then 6 anarchy turns, and civ IV has less turns available...

You don't always have to have anarchy.